Campaigners applaud withdrawal of Killington wind turbines plan

CAMPAIGNERS have welcomed the withdrawal of plans to build three new wind turbines close to theYorkshire Dales National Park ahead of a planned public inquiry.

Developers Banks Renewables’ cited changes to government policy to on-shore wind farms and the cost of an inquiry on the public purse as its reasons for pulling out of the proposal near Killington reservoir.

The turbines, which would have been located to the south of the A684, next to J37 of the M6, were approved by South Lakeland District Council in January.

Related links

“By withdrawing the application, Banks have run shy and deprived the people of South Lakeland of the opportunity to see the evidence properly tested. The tears they are shedding about the costs are no more than crocodile tears.”

And Kate Ashbrook, general secretary of the Open Spaces Society, who also opposed the plan, said: “This is splendid. The development had far-reaching, national implications.”

Tanya Hoare of STAK (Stop Turbines at Killington) said: “We supported the request for a public inquiry because the voice of local people had been ignored. All but one of the surrounding affected local parishes were opposed to the scheme, and over 1,000 letters of objection had been sent in.”

Supporters included South Lakes Action on Climate Change and Radiation Free Lakeland but opponents argued the turbines would impact on wildlife, scenery and the tourism trade.

Phil Dyke, development director at Banks, said: “We have a strong case to put before the public inquiry, but in the present political climate, we know we are unlikely to get a balanced consideration of the merits for the project as a whole, so have decided to withdraw our application with immediate effect to save further costs being unnecessarily incurred by the council.”

Comments (36)

Turbines, as part of a sensible energy mix, can play their part. As for the mock up picture above that purports to show how they would have impacted on the tourism trade. WHAT tourism to Killington? A few people boating on the reservoir are hardly likely to moan.

I have said before and I will say again. No, I wouldn't want on the bottom of my garden but equally I want us to become less reliant on gas and coal and more reliant on renewables.

Pathetic NIMBYism.

Well there goes the environment then.
Turbines, as part of a sensible energy mix, can play their part. As for the mock up picture above that purports to show how they would have impacted on the tourism trade. WHAT tourism to Killington? A few people boating on the reservoir are hardly likely to moan.
I have said before and I will say again. No, I wouldn't want on the bottom of my garden but equally I want us to become less reliant on gas and coal and more reliant on renewables.
Pathetic NIMBYism.Kendal lad

Thank goodness, these would've been horrendous. Well done and thanks to Fells, Stak and the open spaces society.

And no, these contraptions are not a sensible part of our energy mix - do your homework and get it right for the next time we are under siege by these unscrupulous developers. (Gas by the way, in the main is what co-operates with these things and at an efficiency cost. More wind = more reliance on gas).

Thank goodness, these would've been horrendous. Well done and thanks to Fells, Stak and the open spaces society.
And no, these contraptions are not a sensible part of our energy mix - do your homework and get it right for the next time we are under siege by these unscrupulous developers. (Gas by the way, in the main is what co-operates with these things and at an efficiency cost. More wind = more reliance on gas).Yarbles

Horrendous are they? That is an awfully strong word. Turbines not turning, was it windy, were they needed? Wonderful news? Sorry, from my point of view this is a retrograde step, pushed by a vocal minority. What do you propose we do instead?

Oh I know, lets build another nuclear power plant but its OK, it's over by Workington so that doesn't matter. We are now going to get the biggest nuclear power plant in Europe. Happy about that are we?

But it's OK as it hasn't spoilt your pretty view and effected you house prices has it.

It is clear that this is a Marmite subject.
Horrendous are they? That is an awfully strong word. Turbines not turning, was it windy, were they needed? Wonderful news? Sorry, from my point of view this is a retrograde step, pushed by a vocal minority. What do you propose we do instead?
Oh I know, lets build another nuclear power plant but its OK, it's over by Workington so that doesn't matter. We are now going to get the biggest nuclear power plant in Europe. Happy about that are we?
But it's OK as it hasn't spoilt your pretty view and effected you house prices has it.Kendal lad

Whinfell wrote:
I have just driven back from Tebay.
At one point I could see the Lambrig and Old Hutton windfarms.
Seven out of eleven turbines were NOT working!!!
What a waste of money!

It's quite possible the 4 that were turning were being motored around to stop bearing wear

[quote][p][bold]Whinfell[/bold] wrote:
I have just driven back from Tebay.
At one point I could see the Lambrig and Old Hutton windfarms.
Seven out of eleven turbines were NOT working!!!
What a waste of money![/p][/quote]It's quite possible the 4 that were turning were being motored around to stop bearing wearYarbles

'' Turbines not turning, was it windy, were they needed?' says Kendal Lad.

The wind has hardly blown for the past 6 weeks but we have still needed electricity.

Good job we weren't depending on these ugly monstrosities for our energy.
Then they have to turn the darned things off when it is TOO windy!

'' Turbines not turning, was it windy, were they needed?' says Kendal Lad.
The wind has hardly blown for the past 6 weeks but we have still needed electricity.
Good job we weren't depending on these ugly monstrosities for our energy.
Then they have to turn the darned things off when it is TOO windy!Whinfell

Whinfell wrote:
'' Turbines not turning, was it windy, were they needed?' says Kendal Lad.

The wind has hardly blown for the past 6 weeks but we have still needed electricity.

Good job we weren't depending on these ugly monstrosities for our energy.
Then they have to turn the darned things off when it is TOO windy!

'ugly monstrosities for our energy'

So nuclear power stations are OK as long as they don't spoil the view and are sited away from your house then?

Don't worry about the fact that we are saddling our children's, children's, children with toxic waste as long as I can look a hill that doesn't have a turbine on it.

Do you know what, why not look at a different hill !!

Or is it jealousy because you don't own enough land to hoover up all those lovely subsidies with a turbine of your own !!

[quote][p][bold]Whinfell[/bold] wrote:
'' Turbines not turning, was it windy, were they needed?' says Kendal Lad.
The wind has hardly blown for the past 6 weeks but we have still needed electricity.
Good job we weren't depending on these ugly monstrosities for our energy.
Then they have to turn the darned things off when it is TOO windy![/p][/quote]'ugly monstrosities for our energy'
So nuclear power stations are OK as long as they don't spoil the view and are sited away from your house then?
Don't worry about the fact that we are saddling our children's, children's, children with toxic waste as long as I can look a hill that doesn't have a turbine on it.
Do you know what, why not look at a different hill !!
Or is it jealousy because you don't own enough land to hoover up all those lovely subsidies with a turbine of your own !!Kendal lad

3.4GW of reliable energy vs 3.5MW of unreliable energy. It would require 3000 wind turbines of the scale proposed for Killington to produce the same quantity of electricity and even then you would need the same amount of conventional plant to operate on windless days.

Wind can not replace conventional plant, it runs alongside it resulting in a fuel saving at best. I say at best because if you look into the efficiency of conventional plant and how that changes as it ramps up and down to account for variation in supply you will see the fuel savings are negligible.

Stop comparing wind with nuclear, it is immensely stupid.
3.4GW of reliable energy vs 3.5MW of unreliable energy. It would require 3000 wind turbines of the scale proposed for Killington to produce the same quantity of electricity and even then you would need the same amount of conventional plant to operate on windless days.
Wind can not replace conventional plant, it runs alongside it resulting in a fuel saving at best. I say at best because if you look into the efficiency of conventional plant and how that changes as it ramps up and down to account for variation in supply you will see the fuel savings are negligible.Yarbles

3.4GW of reliable energy vs 3.5MW of unreliable energy. It would require 3000 wind turbines of the scale proposed for Killington to produce the same quantity of electricity and even then you would need the same amount of conventional plant to operate on windless days.

Wind can not replace conventional plant, it runs alongside it resulting in a fuel saving at best. I say at best because if you look into the efficiency of conventional plant and how that changes as it ramps up and down to account for variation in supply you will see the fuel savings are negligible.

Stupid you say?

You are missing the point and principle of the argument.

Read my first post. I know they form part of an overall energy mix. What hacks me off is the fact that the basis of the arguments against them is that is spoils the view.

What that actually means is 'I don't want MY house price to be effected'. There are costs and implications for any form of energy production:- gas, nuclear, wind, solar, tidal, bio-mass, coal:- whatever.

I bet you are happy to jump into your car and drive where-ever you want (using fossil fuels) or get on a plane and fly off to your holiday (using fuel that still contains lead and pollutes the high atmosphere) or eat your fruit that has travelled in from various parts of the world at great environmental cost.

Its all about balance and I happen to think that turbines are the least of our worries but from your post, it seems you are happy to saddle the next generations with hundreds of tons of highly toxic waste.

But it's OK as you wont be around to have to deal with it.

[quote][p][bold]Yarbles[/bold] wrote:
Stop comparing wind with nuclear, it is immensely stupid.
3.4GW of reliable energy vs 3.5MW of unreliable energy. It would require 3000 wind turbines of the scale proposed for Killington to produce the same quantity of electricity and even then you would need the same amount of conventional plant to operate on windless days.
Wind can not replace conventional plant, it runs alongside it resulting in a fuel saving at best. I say at best because if you look into the efficiency of conventional plant and how that changes as it ramps up and down to account for variation in supply you will see the fuel savings are negligible.[/p][/quote]Stupid you say?
You are missing the point and principle of the argument.
Read my first post. I know they form part of an overall energy mix. What hacks me off is the fact that the basis of the arguments against them is that is spoils the view.
What that actually means is 'I don't want MY house price to be effected'. There are costs and implications for any form of energy production:- gas, nuclear, wind, solar, tidal, bio-mass, coal:- whatever.
I bet you are happy to jump into your car and drive where-ever you want (using fossil fuels) or get on a plane and fly off to your holiday (using fuel that still contains lead and pollutes the high atmosphere) or eat your fruit that has travelled in from various parts of the world at great environmental cost.
Its all about balance and I happen to think that turbines are the least of our worries but from your post, it seems you are happy to saddle the next generations with hundreds of tons of highly toxic waste.
But it's OK as you wont be around to have to deal with it.Kendal lad

ab oatman wrote:
And you will all still be arguing when the fossil fuels run dry....

ab,

You are quite right, and that is the whole point. We have finite resources available to us on this increasingly small planet and yet people get so worked up about a little thing like a turbine, which can form part of the solution to keeping the lights on.

I refer you to my earlier post:-

Pathetic NIMBYism.

[quote][p][bold]ab oatman[/bold] wrote:
And you will all still be arguing when the fossil fuels run dry....[/p][/quote]ab,
You are quite right, and that is the whole point. We have finite resources available to us on this increasingly small planet and yet people get so worked up about a little thing like a turbine, which can form part of the solution to keeping the lights on.
I refer you to my earlier post:-
Pathetic NIMBYism.Kendal lad

Whinfell wrote:
Kendal Lad seems to produce a lot of hot air.
Perhaps we should link him to a generator and connect it to the National Grid.

Fire away.

And maybe we can link the objectors to the scheme to a bio-mass generator so that the manure they generate could also assist in powering up their laptops and towers so they can post insults such as this.

[quote][p][bold]Whinfell[/bold] wrote:
Kendal Lad seems to produce a lot of hot air.
Perhaps we should link him to a generator and connect it to the National Grid.[/p][/quote]Fire away.
And maybe we can link the objectors to the scheme to a bio-mass generator so that the manure they generate could also assist in powering up their laptops and towers so they can post insults such as this.Kendal lad

3.4GW of reliable energy vs 3.5MW of unreliable energy. It would require 3000 wind turbines of the scale proposed for Killington to produce the same quantity of electricity and even then you would need the same amount of conventional plant to operate on windless days.

Wind can not replace conventional plant, it runs alongside it resulting in a fuel saving at best. I say at best because if you look into the efficiency of conventional plant and how that changes as it ramps up and down to account for variation in supply you will see the fuel savings are negligible.

Stupid you say?

You are missing the point and principle of the argument.

Read my first post. I know they form part of an overall energy mix. What hacks me off is the fact that the basis of the arguments against them is that is spoils the view.

What that actually means is 'I don't want MY house price to be effected'. There are costs and implications for any form of energy production:- gas, nuclear, wind, solar, tidal, bio-mass, coal:- whatever.

I bet you are happy to jump into your car and drive where-ever you want (using fossil fuels) or get on a plane and fly off to your holiday (using fuel that still contains lead and pollutes the high atmosphere) or eat your fruit that has travelled in from various parts of the world at great environmental cost.

Its all about balance and I happen to think that turbines are the least of our worries but from your post, it seems you are happy to saddle the next generations with hundreds of tons of highly toxic waste.

But it's OK as you wont be around to have to deal with it.

With each post you demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of the issues relating to wind generation.
As a retired power engineer with a lifetime of experience in the electricity supply industry, I can assure you that the effect on the landscape has never been a consideration in my objection to this form of energy.
My objection is that wind generation fails on so many different levels but the arguments are technical and almost certainly beyond your understanding.
Taking just one issue:- the only reason wind generators are able to operate at all is because they are connected to a stable system provided by conventional generation. Disconnect the WG's from the grid and they are unable to achieve the statutory standards of voltage and frequency control ad have to be shut down. In other words WG is unstable and relies entirely on conventional generation to maintain stability.
I could go on but it would surely be a waste of time because you have patently shown that you are unable to enter into any sensible discussion on this contentious issue.

[quote][p][bold]Kendal lad[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Yarbles[/bold] wrote:
Stop comparing wind with nuclear, it is immensely stupid.
3.4GW of reliable energy vs 3.5MW of unreliable energy. It would require 3000 wind turbines of the scale proposed for Killington to produce the same quantity of electricity and even then you would need the same amount of conventional plant to operate on windless days.
Wind can not replace conventional plant, it runs alongside it resulting in a fuel saving at best. I say at best because if you look into the efficiency of conventional plant and how that changes as it ramps up and down to account for variation in supply you will see the fuel savings are negligible.[/p][/quote]Stupid you say?
You are missing the point and principle of the argument.
Read my first post. I know they form part of an overall energy mix. What hacks me off is the fact that the basis of the arguments against them is that is spoils the view.
What that actually means is 'I don't want MY house price to be effected'. There are costs and implications for any form of energy production:- gas, nuclear, wind, solar, tidal, bio-mass, coal:- whatever.
I bet you are happy to jump into your car and drive where-ever you want (using fossil fuels) or get on a plane and fly off to your holiday (using fuel that still contains lead and pollutes the high atmosphere) or eat your fruit that has travelled in from various parts of the world at great environmental cost.
Its all about balance and I happen to think that turbines are the least of our worries but from your post, it seems you are happy to saddle the next generations with hundreds of tons of highly toxic waste.
But it's OK as you wont be around to have to deal with it.[/p][/quote]With each post you demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of the issues relating to wind generation.
As a retired power engineer with a lifetime of experience in the electricity supply industry, I can assure you that the effect on the landscape has never been a consideration in my objection to this form of energy.
My objection is that wind generation fails on so many different levels but the arguments are technical and almost certainly beyond your understanding.
Taking just one issue:- the only reason wind generators are able to operate at all is because they are connected to a stable system provided by conventional generation. Disconnect the WG's from the grid and they are unable to achieve the statutory standards of voltage and frequency control ad have to be shut down. In other words WG is unstable and relies entirely on conventional generation to maintain stability.
I could go on but it would surely be a waste of time because you have patently shown that you are unable to enter into any sensible discussion on this contentious issue.Hoad Hill

Is there anyone out there who can present a SENSIBLE arguement FOR wind power.
Not read anything in this forum, or anywhere else for that matter, which would persuade me that Windfarms are nothing but a money generating scheme for businesses looking for tax payer funded profits.

Is there anyone out there who can present a SENSIBLE arguement FOR wind power.
Not read anything in this forum, or anywhere else for that matter, which would persuade me that Windfarms are nothing but a money generating scheme for businesses looking for tax payer funded profits.Whinfell

Spotty Fish wrote:
Well Hoad Hill. Whether you are right or wrong, you certainly couldn't be any more patronising about it could you?

Interesting that you haven't made any attempt to engage in the debate...could that be because you don't understand the technicalities?
I think you might just have made my point!

[quote][p][bold]Spotty Fish[/bold] wrote:
Well Hoad Hill. Whether you are right or wrong, you certainly couldn't be any more patronising about it could you?[/p][/quote]Interesting that you haven't made any attempt to engage in the debate...could that be because you don't understand the technicalities?
I think you might just have made my point!Hoad Hill

Spotty Fish wrote:
Well Hoad Hill. Whether you are right or wrong, you certainly couldn't be any more patronising about it could you?

Interesting that you haven't made any attempt to engage in the debate...could that be because you don't understand the technicalities?
I think you might just have made my point!

And you his!

[quote][p][bold]Hoad Hill[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Spotty Fish[/bold] wrote:
Well Hoad Hill. Whether you are right or wrong, you certainly couldn't be any more patronising about it could you?[/p][/quote]Interesting that you haven't made any attempt to engage in the debate...could that be because you don't understand the technicalities?
I think you might just have made my point![/p][/quote]And you his!ab oatman

Could you possibly be more patronising? If that is the level you need to stoop to win the argument, good luck to you.

Next you'll be saying 'My Dad is bigger than your Dad'.

There shouldn't be any need to argue, the issue is pretty clear cut to someone with a technical background. Do you have an area of expertise? How would you react if someone with no expertise in your field started talking rubbish about it? The problem with engineering is that everyone thinks they are an expert, it is extremely annoying and gets very wearing so you can expect a pretty direct response I'm afraid.

If you really care about the energy debate please do some research.

[quote][p][bold]Kendal lad[/bold] wrote:
Hoad Hill,
Could you possibly be more patronising? If that is the level you need to stoop to win the argument, good luck to you.
Next you'll be saying 'My Dad is bigger than your Dad'.[/p][/quote]There shouldn't be any need to argue, the issue is pretty clear cut to someone with a technical background. Do you have an area of expertise? How would you react if someone with no expertise in your field started talking rubbish about it? The problem with engineering is that everyone thinks they are an expert, it is extremely annoying and gets very wearing so you can expect a pretty direct response I'm afraid.
If you really care about the energy debate please do some research.Yarbles

You're right Hoad Hill, I know nothing about the technicalities,but just because you do, it doesn't entitle you to speak to the rest of us in such a condecending way. You sound like the worst kind of teachers I used to have at school. You know everything, but can't be bothered to explain it in simple terms for those of us without your knowledge. Maybe if you took the time more people would understand and we wouldn't have all this weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth everytime someone tries to get planning permission for one of these things.

You're right Hoad Hill, I know nothing about the technicalities,but just because you do, it doesn't entitle you to speak to the rest of us in such a condecending way. You sound like the worst kind of teachers I used to have at school. You know everything, but can't be bothered to explain it in simple terms for those of us without your knowledge. Maybe if you took the time more people would understand and we wouldn't have all this weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth everytime someone tries to get planning permission for one of these things.Spotty Fish

Would Cumbria be able to host enough wind turbines and renewables to Provide energy to look after nuclear wastes into eternity? the waste from the proposed Toshiba built reactors would require cooling for decades longer than existing wastes. Wind is a threat to nuclear madness ...too much electricity going into the grid would fowl up the nuclear agenda.

Would Cumbria be able to host enough wind turbines and renewables to Provide energy to look after nuclear wastes into eternity? the waste from the proposed Toshiba built reactors would require cooling for decades longer than existing wastes. Wind is a threat to nuclear madness ...too much electricity going into the grid would fowl up the nuclear agenda.marianneb

Whinfell wrote:
Is there anyone out there who can present a SENSIBLE arguement FOR wind power.
Not read anything in this forum, or anywhere else for that matter, which would persuade me that Windfarms are nothing but a money generating scheme for businesses looking for tax payer funded profits.

It's only the Brits who are being conned into MORE nuclear madness the rest of Europe is withdrawing from the insane game of nuclear thrones.

[quote][p][bold]Whinfell[/bold] wrote:
Is there anyone out there who can present a SENSIBLE arguement FOR wind power.
Not read anything in this forum, or anywhere else for that matter, which would persuade me that Windfarms are nothing but a money generating scheme for businesses looking for tax payer funded profits.[/p][/quote]No argument here FOR 100% wind powered rail network... http://www.railjourn
al.com/index.php/eur
ope/dutch-trains-to-
be-wind-powered-from
-2018.html
It's only the Brits who are being conned into MORE nuclear madness the rest of Europe is withdrawing from the insane game of nuclear thrones.marianneb

I am no expert on which European countries are getting rid of nuclear energy but I know France definitely are continuing to use nuclear power in a big way.
Since I threw down the gauntlet I have still not heard any reasonable argument why wind farms are a viable, serious source of reliable power.

I am no expert on which European countries are getting rid of nuclear energy but I know France definitely are continuing to use nuclear power in a big way.
Since I threw down the gauntlet I have still not heard any reasonable argument why wind farms are a viable, serious source of reliable power.Whinfell

Spotty Fish wrote:
You're right Hoad Hill, I know nothing about the technicalities,but just because you do, it doesn't entitle you to speak to the rest of us in such a condecending way. You sound like the worst kind of teachers I used to have at school. You know everything, but can't be bothered to explain it in simple terms for those of us without your knowledge. Maybe if you took the time more people would understand and we wouldn't have all this weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth everytime someone tries to get planning permission for one of these things.

The problem is if people don't understand the technical side of things their opinion is meaningless. The feasibility of wind is entirely dependent on the physics - civil, electrical, mechanical engineering. Might sound a bit harsh but it's science not philosophy. It would be great if wind could be part of a viable solution to our energy needs but it's wishful thinking. Engineering is about being realistic not idealistic.

The electricity system is pretty complex and you're not going to get comprehensive explanations on a comment thread - the subject is huge and even if you did you probably wouldn't have the background knowledge to make sense of it. If you want some pointers I'd start with the topics below, in no particular order:

[quote][p][bold]Spotty Fish[/bold] wrote:
You're right Hoad Hill, I know nothing about the technicalities,but just because you do, it doesn't entitle you to speak to the rest of us in such a condecending way. You sound like the worst kind of teachers I used to have at school. You know everything, but can't be bothered to explain it in simple terms for those of us without your knowledge. Maybe if you took the time more people would understand and we wouldn't have all this weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth everytime someone tries to get planning permission for one of these things.[/p][/quote]The problem is if people don't understand the technical side of things their opinion is meaningless. The feasibility of wind is entirely dependent on the physics - civil, electrical, mechanical engineering. Might sound a bit harsh but it's science not philosophy. It would be great if wind could be part of a viable solution to our energy needs but it's wishful thinking. Engineering is about being realistic not idealistic.
The electricity system is pretty complex and you're not going to get comprehensive explanations on a comment thread - the subject is huge and even if you did you probably wouldn't have the background knowledge to make sense of it. If you want some pointers I'd start with the topics below, in no particular order:
Transmission system - losses
Load balancing
Operating reserve - spinning / non-spinning
Synchronous / Asyncronous generators
Conventional plant - open cycle, combined cycle
Baseload plant
Dispatch
Capacity factor
Efficiency of plant at differing outputs
Electricity Quality
Finances - ROCs FitsYarbles

France are aiming to cut back on nuclear in a BIG way. BTW a nuclear power plant has mega turbines turned by the steam expensively and dangerously produced by nuclear fission. So much heat is produced that ,long after any electricity production, nobody knows what the hell to do with it....apart from pouring cold water over the resulting crapola for decades and then chucking it into holes in the ground. The noise from nuclear plants is much more than that from wind farms...Calder Halls (Sellafield) turbine could be heard humming from Ravenglass a few miles away. To have nuclear means ditching renewables in order to make room on the National grid. Nuclear is inflexible, a toxic dinosaur that should have gone extinct years ago.

France are aiming to cut back on nuclear in a BIG way. BTW a nuclear power plant has mega turbines turned by the steam expensively and dangerously produced by nuclear fission. So much heat is produced that ,long after any electricity production, nobody knows what the hell to do with it....apart from pouring cold water over the resulting crapola for decades and then chucking it into holes in the ground. The noise from nuclear plants is much more than that from wind farms...Calder Halls (Sellafield) turbine could be heard humming from Ravenglass a few miles away. To have nuclear means ditching renewables in order to make room on the National grid. Nuclear is inflexible, a toxic dinosaur that should have gone extinct years ago.marianneb

Spotty Fish wrote:
You're right Hoad Hill, I know nothing about the technicalities,but just because you do, it doesn't entitle you to speak to the rest of us in such a condecending way. You sound like the worst kind of teachers I used to have at school. You know everything, but can't be bothered to explain it in simple terms for those of us without your knowledge. Maybe if you took the time more people would understand and we wouldn't have all this weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth everytime someone tries to get planning permission for one of these things.

The problem is if people don't understand the technical side of things their opinion is meaningless. The feasibility of wind is entirely dependent on the physics - civil, electrical, mechanical engineering. Might sound a bit harsh but it's science not philosophy. It would be great if wind could be part of a viable solution to our energy needs but it's wishful thinking. Engineering is about being realistic not idealistic.

The electricity system is pretty complex and you're not going to get comprehensive explanations on a comment thread - the subject is huge and even if you did you probably wouldn't have the background knowledge to make sense of it. If you want some pointers I'd start with the topics below, in no particular order:

Yarbles wrote that wind as part of a solution is "wishful thinking". WRONG wind energy is viable has always been viable and WILL always be viable as evidenced from real life experience around the world where renewables are outstripping nuclear in performance by a long way. The wishful thinking is that nuclear provides. "safe clean energy" ..... Flying pigs are out in force.

[quote][p][bold]Yarbles[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Spotty Fish[/bold] wrote:
You're right Hoad Hill, I know nothing about the technicalities,but just because you do, it doesn't entitle you to speak to the rest of us in such a condecending way. You sound like the worst kind of teachers I used to have at school. You know everything, but can't be bothered to explain it in simple terms for those of us without your knowledge. Maybe if you took the time more people would understand and we wouldn't have all this weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth everytime someone tries to get planning permission for one of these things.[/p][/quote]The problem is if people don't understand the technical side of things their opinion is meaningless. The feasibility of wind is entirely dependent on the physics - civil, electrical, mechanical engineering. Might sound a bit harsh but it's science not philosophy. It would be great if wind could be part of a viable solution to our energy needs but it's wishful thinking. Engineering is about being realistic not idealistic.
The electricity system is pretty complex and you're not going to get comprehensive explanations on a comment thread - the subject is huge and even if you did you probably wouldn't have the background knowledge to make sense of it. If you want some pointers I'd start with the topics below, in no particular order:
Transmission system - losses
Load balancing
Operating reserve - spinning / non-spinning
Synchronous / Asyncronous generators
Conventional plant - open cycle, combined cycle
Baseload plant
Dispatch
Capacity factor
Efficiency of plant at differing outputs
Electricity Quality
Finances - ROCs Fits[/p][/quote]Yarbles wrote that wind as part of a solution is "wishful thinking". WRONG wind energy is viable has always been viable and WILL always be viable as evidenced from real life experience around the world where renewables are outstripping nuclear in performance by a long way. The wishful thinking is that nuclear provides. "safe clean energy" ..... Flying pigs are out in force.marianneb

Have the developers been warned off in order to make room for nuclear? Renewables are set to outstrip nuclear even here in the pronuclear ghetto of UK politics while elsewhere in the world they are out performing nuclear by a long chalk. http://www.theguardi
an.com/environment/2
012/oct/30/renewable
-energy-nuclear-powe
r

Have the developers been warned off in order to make room for nuclear? Renewables are set to outstrip nuclear even here in the pronuclear ghetto of UK politics while elsewhere in the world they are out performing nuclear by a long chalk. http://www.theguardi
an.com/environment/2
012/oct/30/renewable
-energy-nuclear-powe
rmarianneb

As I conceded I am no expert on European nuclear energy production but I have just read the following statement about the French nuclear Industry.

'France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.
France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.
France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.
It is building its first Generation III reactor.
About 17% of France's electricity is from recycled nuclear fuel.'

As I conceded I am no expert on European nuclear energy production but I have just read the following statement about the French nuclear Industry.
'France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.
France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.
France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.
It is building its first Generation III reactor.
About 17% of France's electricity is from recycled nuclear fuel.'Whinfell

The full picture is that France feels it is a "logical evolution" to cut down and phase out nuclear power. This is because of the dangers and the health detriments. Good On Em! That is why they are pretty keen to export ELectricite de France to the UK! http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/magazine-25674
581

The full picture is that France feels it is a "logical evolution" to cut down and phase out nuclear power. This is because of the dangers and the health detriments. Good On Em! That is why they are pretty keen to export ELectricite de France to the UK! http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/magazine-25674
581marianneb

Aspirations and 'pie in the sky' thinking are one thing,practicalities are another.
Looking at the present situation in France,there is no doubt France is currently a big player in the Nuclear Energy Industry.
Neither France nor you will know what the situation will be in ten years time.

I noticed the wind was actually blowing for the first time in 6 weeks yesterday.
The Old Hutton wind farm may have just about generated enough power to boil my kettle.
Three cheers!

Aspirations and 'pie in the sky' thinking are one thing,practicalities are another.
Looking at the present situation in France,there is no doubt France is currently a big player in the Nuclear Energy Industry.
Neither France nor you will know what the situation will be in ten years time.
I noticed the wind was actually blowing for the first time in 6 weeks yesterday.
The Old Hutton wind farm may have just about generated enough power to boil my kettle.
Three cheers!Whinfell

Marrianneb
I have just read your comment- 'Yarbles wrote that wind as part of a solution is "wishful thinking". WRONG wind energy is viable has always been viable and WILL always be viable as evidenced from real life experience around the world where renewables are outstripping nuclear in performance by a long way. The wishful thinking is that nuclear provides. "safe clean energy" ..... Flying pigs are out in force.'

Marrianneb
I have just read your comment- 'Yarbles wrote that wind as part of a solution is "wishful thinking". WRONG wind energy is viable has always been viable and WILL always be viable as evidenced from real life experience around the world where renewables are outstripping nuclear in performance by a long way. The wishful thinking is that nuclear provides. "safe clean energy" ..... Flying pigs are out in force.'
You don't do your fellow Renewable Energy supporters any favours writing nonsense like that.Whinfell

I wish I could say that common sense has prevailed, but the right decision has been taken for the wrong reasions in my opinion. There is no economic and no sensible environmental case for wind power generation. The embodied carbon in the development, inefficiency of generation and power loss on transmission - coupled with intermittent and unpredictable operation - make it a poor alternative. Offshore is as bad, if not worse on the startup carbon cost.

Unpalatable it may be to many, in my opinion, nuclear is the only way forward.

I wish I could say that common sense has prevailed, but the right decision has been taken for the wrong reasions in my opinion. There is no economic and no sensible environmental case for wind power generation. The embodied carbon in the development, inefficiency of generation and power loss on transmission - coupled with intermittent and unpredictable operation - make it a poor alternative. Offshore is as bad, if not worse on the startup carbon cost.
Unpalatable it may be to many, in my opinion, nuclear is the only way forward.Featherstonehough

Just another thought:now we have got these money wasting turbines for the next 25 years is it worth putting a huge solar panel at the base of each one?
Then at least more two energy generators would be there for the price of one.
The landscape has been wrecked anyway so a solar panel on the ground would make little difference visually.
I suppose someone will tell me solar panels are a waste of space too!

Couldn't agree more Featherstonehough.
Just another thought:now we have got these money wasting turbines for the next 25 years is it worth putting a huge solar panel at the base of each one?
Then at least more two energy generators would be there for the price of one.
The landscape has been wrecked anyway so a solar panel on the ground would make little difference visually.
I suppose someone will tell me solar panels are a waste of space too!Whinfell